rod03801: Its “bothersome” because a pawn made what seems to me to be a reasonable request and there has not been a reasonable response, other than what amount to “because I say so”. Are you saying that we should not support others unless we are in the same group? Don’t consider the handicapped for example unless you have the same problem?

Justaminute: It's pretty clear. There are rules on this site. People were breaking the rules. This was a way to minimize it. I'm not sure why it's so hard to understand, or why it should be so bothersome to a non-pawn.

rod03801:
I'm not questioning that it happened. I'm asking how this benefits the member?

Justaminute: We're telling you it happened. It's not imaginary. Fencer didn't just randomly change it.

grenv: Unless I'm mistaken, pawns cannot delete either. Of course it's been a LONG time since I was a pawn.

Justaminute: its not rocket science

rod03801:
But why does it assist a paid member to create a pawn account, write a defamatory remark and delete it over doing the same thing with their main account? Unless such remarks can’t be tracked by pawns I don’t follow how this assists?

rod03801: right, but he forgot to disallow deleting, so it is not effective in what it intended.

grenv: It happened plenty of times, which is why Fencer did it, in the first place. It wasn't always this way.

right...no one ever does this in an attempt to get under another players skin...or maybe push for an unwelcomed or non allowed post in response then delete the post that started it and act all innocent.
and why would anyone dream up a few multi nics????? lol
it is after all....just a game site.

I just deleted an old post... meaning that effectively I CAN edit...

just copy the text... delete it... and paste into a new message, edit it and save.

Case closed.

Anyway, who gives a DELETED

Vikings: So everyone is guilty until proven innocent and those who are innocent have to suffer because of a few!!

Far better to have a system that just logs all posts as they are posted/edited. Plus that stops the posting of nasty posts by a few who then delete them!!

Justaminute: And why should he want to bother to delete it? that's why he was writing under a nick to start with.

Justaminute: yep - and anyway it's just a little game site, what could anyone possibly say here that is defamatory that actually matters in real life? lol

grenv:
Agreed, sounds complete nonsense. How would a paying member cover his tracks by creating a pawn account, writing something defamatory and then deleting it, as opposed to writing it under their own name and then deleting it?

Vikings: Look, espionage and intrigue aside (sounds like nonsense paranoia to me)...

If you can post a message you should be able to edit it... after all the alternative is to simply add a second message correcting the first, which is kind of clumssssy

grenv: The reason is that without the possibility for a pawn to edit (or in other words get rid of the evidence), there is a less likely chance that a paying member will create a pawn account to make a post that they wouldn't as a paying member as it could result in a ban on their paid membership

grenv: I suppose Vikings has told you the reason in a personal message. Can you please share it with the rest of us?

Vikings: What is the reason?

Undertaker.: there is a reason for not being capable to edit post for pawns, and if a pawn wants it edited/deleted, they can have a moderator do it for them

Undertaker.: I agree with you.

Hi.

There're several advantages for paid membership, one of them is correct our posts when we detect some mistake.
However, i think that option should be allowed to all players, because the question is become our post more clear to everybody...

do something about it? or its delayed until BK 3.0?

Chaosu: a lot of the "help" in its various forms is.

Tip of the day #15 is outdated.

rabbitoid: We can call it whatever you like, rabbitoid, just lemme have it! ;-)

That's what happens, very often. But you can also have a chain of forced moves for both sides.

rabbitoid: Not recursively, just a single pass. I thought the typical situation in Anti Chess was that one player moves a piece and the opponent is forced to capture it, or am I wrong?

Fencer: recursively?
Watch it, because there may be positions where both have only one available move. and since your s/w doesn't check repetitions in position you're looking at trouble.

rabbitoid: Actually it's not that difficult because some games are already checking if your opponent can make a move after submitting your move (all checkers variants, for instance). So it would be only modified to "check opponent's moves and if there is only one, insert it to the database" condition.

Thad, sacha : actually anti chess is different: it wouldn't exactly be auto-pass, it would be auto-move-the-only-available-option, and I'm sure this would be more much more difficult to code.

It's just like this message board. When I came and looked at it, my pointer pointed to seven new messages, but other users may have it point to a different number of new messages. A game might point to a different place, depending on when they last looked at it and how many moves (auto or played) have occurred.

"...is not wanting a game to "get away from you" in the event of a chain-autopass, such that when you look at it again you don't even recognize it as the same game you last moved on...."

I think it would be easily solved to still show every move for each play (with maybe an option to skip all autopass/move turns)

For for example.
Turn 1 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 2 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 3 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 4 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 5 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player has an auto), game right away come back to Player A.
Turn 6 - Player A is on line, makes a move in a game - submit. (Other player now is able to make a turn, so game goes to Player B.

Later in the day, Player B comes on line - see's game, and SEE'S Turn 1 (Of course unless they have the skip option checked)
Turn 1 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 2 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 3 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 4 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 5 - no move, hits submit. Since player A already made a move, game comes right back to Player B
Turn 6 - Oh, they now are able to make a move - makes it, submits - and now game goes back to Player A

So 12 turns (6 for each player) is played quickly - moving the game along. Both players don't "miss" in action [unless then choose to skip it].

That way no one is "lost" or doesn't know what happens.

kleineme: No. I will take care of it when it actually happens.

Fencer: "not designed for mutual autopass (both players are unable to move several times in a row)"

But as this is not completely impossible in Backgammon as well, this has to be taken care of somehow already now?

MTC: the only reason i can think of for disagreeing is not wanting a game to "get away from you" in the event of a chain-autopass, such that when you look at it again you don't even recognize it as the same game you last moved on. but even so, i can't see this as justification for not including the *option* of autopass in such games; it would just be a justification for a player who wants to avoid that situation leaving the autopass option unchecked for that game.

it seems clear to me that there should be an autopass option for every game in which it could conceivably be used, and whether to enable it or not should be left to the discretion of each individual player. problem solved!

Fencer: ah, i see. i'm glad to know it'll be in the next version. thanks, Filip!

I would really like to see autopass in antichess. It might even push me to start playing it here again. ;-)

Most games have certain positions where autopass/automove would be useful. That is, any position where there is only one legal move (including “pass”). I would use it in any game if it were available, it quite simply saves time. I am surprised whenever I see that others disagree.

Any chance of an opinion poll on this subject? ;)

rabbitoid:
I would like very much auto-pass in antichess!! In ludo better!!

rabbitoid: Agreed.

Fencer: By the way in chess there's a variant that could conceivably use auto-pass too: anti chess. But I don't think there are a lot of anti-chess players who would like to use that possibility. I certainly wouldn't.

plaintiger: The current model of games is not designed for mutual autopass (both players are unable to move several times in a row, which is very usual in Ludo games). You know, we started with Chess and similar games, and didn't expect to add games of this kind. However, the new (completely rewritten) game model will cover all different game aspects, including Ludo features. It will be included in the new version of BrainKing.

Bwild: i'll just let this lie until we see how Fencer responds. i trust he'll know an opportunity to build goodwill when he sees it...

auto-pass for Ludo, *please*?

i can't help but think i've already wasted a lot more time dismissing games that i can't move on - to say nothing of all the other players who are doing the same thing - than it would take to implement auto-pass on BrainKing's end. is it a lot more involved than copying and pasting a few lines of code from one of the games that already features auto-pass? if it is, i'll be quiet (i try not to be a complainer as it is). but if it's something that would take five or ten minutes to do, i'd like to ask that it be moved up the priority list and done, so it can be checked off the list once and for all and forgotten. one less thing on the to-do list! woohoo!

that would save a lot of players a lot of wasted time and clicking, is all.

thanks, Filip!

There should be a button "move in every game where is only one legal action". This occurs frequently e.g. in backgammon and dice chess.

Bring the number of games where it is your turn from, say, 856 down to 819 with only one click

Pedro Martínez: I can't delete his posts anyway. But I WOULD.

rod03801: Now Fencer better complies…